Special report: pharmacists’ views on assisted dying

This article will explore the breadth of pharmacists’ views on assisted dying, including those in support, against and those who remain undecided. It is also aimed to shed light on how pharmacists’ views compare to other healthcare professionals, as well as public sentiment.

Here, ‘assisted dying’ refers to terminally ill patients self-administering a substance to end their life, following thorough eligibility checks by doctors (see Box^​1,2​). 

Views on assisted dying in principle

In September 2025, results from a survey of 755 pharmacist members of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society (RPS), carried out by The Pharmaceutical Journal, revealed that just over half of respondents (54%; n=408) supported assisted dying, 35% opposed it (n=267) and 11% (n=80) said they were unsure of their views on the subject (see Figure 1). 

Figure 1: Over half (54%) of pharmacists support the principle of assisted dying

The survey was carried out in response to proposed legislation in England, Wales and Scotland that would introduce assisted dying.

At the time of publication, the Bill in England and Wales was currently at committee stage in the House of Lords, with peers having tabled over 1,200 amendments, while a similar bill was being debated in the Scottish Parliament (see Figure 2).

Figure 2: A timeline of assisted dying legislative changes in England, Scotland and Wales

Currently, assisted dying is illegal in the UK. In England and Wales, “encouraging or assisting suicide” is an offence that carries a maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment. In Scotland, assisted suicide is not specifically a crime, but it could lead to a prosecution for murder or reckless endangerment.

However, the initial question in The Pharmaceutical Journal’s survey emphasised that it was only asking pharmacists for views on the general principle of assisted dying, rather than any upcoming or potential legislation. 

The proportion of survey respondents who said they supported assisted dying broadly aligns with survey findings among GPs. In 2020, a survey carried out by the British Medical Association (BMA) of 29,986 GPs revealed that 50% of respondents (n=14,408) personally supported the legalisation of assisted dying, with 30% (n=11,385) in opposition and 11% (n=3,193) unsure (see Figure 3)^​3​. 

Figure 3: Public and healthcare professional views on assisted dying

There has been no comparable survey performed within the nursing profession but, in June 2024, an indicative vote among 760 members of the Royal College of Nursing (RCN) revealed that 44% (n=331) of nurses vote in support of assisted dying — a lower figure than pharmacists and GPs^​4​. One-fifth (21%, n=158) of nurses abstained from the vote, while over one-third (36%, n=271) were against the principle. 

Members of the public have demonstrated that they are significantly more likely to support the principle of assisted dying compared to healthcare professionals. Results of a 2024 Opinium survey of 10,897 UK adults showed that 75% (n=8,160) supported the idea, while 14% (n=1,509) opposed it^​5​. One in ten people (11%, n=1,228) chose the ‘don’t know/prefer not to say’ option. 

Opting out 

The ability to opt out of providing assisted dying services is a concern for over three-quarters (78%; n=570) of pharmacists surveyed by The Pharmaceutical Journal (see Figure 4). 

Figure 4: Over three-quarters (78%) of pharmacists think healthcare professionals should be able to opt out of assisted dying tasks

As one pharmacist respondent who supported the idea of assisted dying told us: “This needs to be very carefully legislated to ensure this right is not abused and to protect the healthcare practitioners who support these patients, but also to not force healthcare practitioners to participate if they abstain from involvement due to their personal views.”

Although other healthcare professionals have not been formally surveyed on conscientious objection, when GPs were asked if they would personally participate in the assisted dying process, only 36% (n=10,471) said ‘yes’, compared with 45% (n=13,061) who said ‘no’, while 19% (n=5,454) were undecided. 

All professional bodies that support healthcare professionals remain neutral on assisted dying, but are each campaigning to make sure that their members’ views are considered, including a right to conscientiously object to participating in assisted dying.

For example, the RPS is calling for legal protection for pharmacists if assisted dying is made legal, as well as an opt-out clause allowing pharmacists to decline to dispense on moral, ethical or religious grounds. In December 2025, it gave evidence to the House of Lords committee, where it reinforced its neutral stance on the issue. 

Speaking to The Pharmaceutical Journal when the survey results were published in November 2025, Laura Wilson, director for Scotland at the RPS, said: “[The Society has] advocated to ensure that there are sufficient protections for pharmacists who wish to either take part or not take part in the process and that the precise role of the pharmacist in the process is clearly set out.”

The BMA has said it would prefer an opt-in model for doctors to provide assisted dying, which should be provided as a separate service rather than integrated into existing care pathways. Meanwhile, the RCN has expressed its support for nurses to have the right to choose whether or not to participate, and says they should not be discriminated against based on this decision. 

Despite almost unanimous agreement that healthcare professionals should be able to opt out, concerns were raised in January 2026 that clinicians in Scotland would not be able to conscientiously object. The ‘conscience clause’ will be removed from the Scottish Bill before it can be passed, which means that if the UK Bill is passed without an “opt-out” clause, Scottish pharmacists could face weaker protections. If the UK Bill fails, there will be no provision for an opt-out clause entirely; however, it is possible for a ‘Section 104 Order’ to be implemented at a later stage, which would allow the Scottish government to make its own provisions around the conscience clause.

The RPS in Scotland and six other healthcare organisations have expressed “significant collective concern” around the proposed changes. In a joint letter sent to Liam McArthur MSP on 23 February 2026, the organisations warned that the opt-out protections are “central to the safe, ethical, and fair delivery of care, and to the confidence of our medical workforce who may be affected by the legislation”.

Positions in support of assisted dying

Although 54% of pharmacists surveyed by The Pharmaceutical Journal supported assisted dying in principle, only 38% (n=228) agreed with the bill that has been proposed for England and Wales. In Scotland, from which there was a smaller number of pharmacist respondents, only 40% (n=37) agreed with the Scottish Bill (see Figure 5). 

Figure 5: Support for the proposed bills is lower than for the principle of assisted dying

The most common reason provided for not supporting the specific bill, despite supporting the idea, was a lack of appropriate safeguards for vulnerable people. One respondent said it left “far too much responsibility on the shoulders of the clinicians providing care,” while another said there had been “a lack of input from the various groups and professions that it will impact”.

One pharmacist, who said they were fully supportive of the general principle of assisted dying, said: “I do not believe it will be possible to legislate for it in a robust enough way that vulnerable people are protected, without compromising the rights and dignity of those who would genuinely benefit.”

Some responses mentioned the need for strict safeguards around assisted dying if it were to be made legal. One said it would only be acceptable “in desperate circumstances, after appropriate robust checks have been made”.

All respondents to the survey had the opportunity to add comments about their views. These comments were free-text and were not sorted into categories as part of this survey.

Pharmacists who support assisted dying raised some ethical and practical concerns, including the following, which are explored in detail below: 

• Dying without suffering;
• Experiences of death;
• The right to choose;
• A personal choice.

Dying without suffering

One of the reasons given for supporting the concept of assisted dying was to reduce suffering in patients. This echoes the BMA survey, which found that 23% of GPs (n=3,320) cited “unnecessary suffering” as a reason to support a change in the law.

Many pharmacists felt that palliative care was the best option for most people, but that in some cases, this was not always sufficient to reduce a patient’s symptoms. 

“Palliative care does not always ease a patient to comfortably complete dying,” one respondent commented.

Another said: “My first preference would be to allow a pain-free death in a hospice. Failing that, then a pain-controlled death at home. I do not believe that assisted dying is compulsory but is a choice made by the patient with medical assistance.”

Compassion for people who may experience a painful death was at the forefront of many pharmacists’ minds. One cited seeing people “suffering greatly in the last few days of life” as their reason for supporting the principle of assisted dying. 

Another commented: “It gives choice to a terminally ill person about when they wish to die, so that they do not have to go through a long drawn out and possibly unpleasant and painful (emotional and physical) time.”

Experiences of death

Pharmacist respondents also shared their own personal experiences of seeing loved ones die in pain, which contributed to their opinions on assisted dying. 

One pharmacist said they had “sat by the bed of two relatives (both of whom had cancer) and seen one of them be unconscious, unresponsive and groaning in pain over seven days”, which led them to support “anything that makes the passing more peaceful and dignified”.

Another said they had witnessed both their parents and mother-in-law “suffer in pain at the end of their lives” despite being in hospice and hospital care. 

One respondent, who had treated terminally ill people professionally and whose family members had also experienced terminal illness, said: “Despite the theory that there is no need to die in discomfort and pain, this does not necessarily appear to be always the case.” 

With degenerative conditions, such as motor neurone disease, they felt that “with sufficient safeguards and control, one should be able to choose the time and manner of death”. 

Another shared details of — in their words — a “positive experience” with a sibling who underwent assisted dying in the Netherlands. 

Others mentioned their professional experiences with patients: “With over 40 years on the register, I have seen too much heartache attached to terminal illness,” one pharmacist said. 

“Many of my former patients would have been delighted to end their last days with dignity but were not allowed to do so. While there are excellent hospices, not everyone has access to them.”

A previous hospice pharmacist told us: “I’ve seen the pain and discomfort as the skin breaks down and even at the highest doses, people are still in pain and beg for their end of life, it’s hard for families and staff to watch.”

The right to choose

Another oft-cited reason for pharmacists who supported assisted dying was wanting patients to have the right to choose a dignified death, with one person saying they “believe in patient choice and dignity”. 

Similarly, this was one of the main reasons to support assisted dying among GPs, with 28% (n=4,042) respondents to the BMA survey giving the view that patients should have the right to choose assisted dying as a treatment option in the same way as other kinds of treatment. 

“I believe you should be allowed to do whatever you would like with your own body. Provided it is a fully thought through informed decision and the individual is supported, I believe assisted dying is the lesser option of two evils,” one pharmacist said.

“I don’t believe in extending life at all costs and believe people should have a right to choice in relation to when and how they die. A good death is as important as a good birth,” another told us. 

Many brought up the idea that pets and other animals can be put to sleep if their pain is deemed too great, but assisted dying is not an option for humans. 

“We would never put any other organism through the level of suffering that we sometimes accept for humans. To die with dignity is a human right, in my opinion,” one such comment read.

One respondent said that giving patients the choice of when and how to die was the epitome of patient-centred care. “Over my career, delivery of healthcare has moved away from blindly following ‘doctor’s orders’ to a ‘patient-centred’ approach where patients have the autonomy to choose to receive or to not receive any particular treatment on offer,” they explained. 

“Towards the end of life, when quality of life reaches a particularly low level and there is no way back to ‘health,’ we should be allowed to choose the option of bringing our life to a rapid and dignified end.”

A personal choice

Some respondents told The Pharmaceutical Journal they supported assisted dying becoming law because they would personally opt for it in the right circumstances. 

“I support people’s moral rights to choose how to end their lives. I would want the choice for myself,” one respondent said. 

Another pharmacist shared that they had been diagnosed with multiple sclerosis and had a family history of Alzheimer’s disease, adding: “I would like to have the choice if the time should come. I don’t believe in prolonging suffering unnecessarily. If I was in that situation, I would want to be given the choice to end things on my terms.”

Positions against assisted dying

Just over one-third (35%; n=267) of respondents to The Pharmaceutical Journal survey opposed the principle of assisted dying. Among those who provided comments, the reasons given here were varied. Some of them mentioned religious beliefs that did not align with supporting assisted dying, while others had strong moral concerns that it would devalue human life.

Several pharmacists felt that their role was to provide care for people – for example, one comment read: “I feel uncomfortable with the notion of assisting someone to die when I have spent more than 40 years in pharmacy trying to help people.”

Another response said: “Pharmacy, and healthcare as a whole, is rooted in empathy, care and support. Instead of ending life, we should focus on interventions, holistic care, palliative support and compassion to help patients live with dignity.”

Two pharmacists told us they were terminally ill but would not personally opt for assisted dying if they had the choice. One said: “Since my diagnosis, new treatments have become available, including a vaccine for my type of cancer should my current maintenance treatment fail. I am a Roman Catholic and I believe life needs to run its course. I hope I will receive effective palliative care if and when the time comes.”

The other said: “I am terminally ill and have completed a [‘Do Not Resuscitate’ order], indicating that I would not be happy to have intensive care. However, I wish to enjoy the best quality of life until that time.”

The views of people who oppose assisted dying include the following list, which are explored in more detail below. 

• Distracting from palliative care;
• Risk of abuse;
• Protections for healthcare professionals;
• Being a burden;
• Learnings from other countries.

Distracting from palliative care

One of the reasons pharmacist respondents cited for not supporting the idea of assisted dying was that palliative care should be sufficient to allow someone to die without being in great discomfort. Concerns were raised that the greater focus on assisted dying would lead to a decrease in funding and research into palliative care. Responses to The Pharmaceutical Journal survey showed that 70% (n=507) of respondents believe that assisted dying law changes would influence palliative care services, while only 10% (n=76) felt that palliative care services would not be influenced (see Figure 6).

Figure 6: The majority of pharmacists believe a change in the assisted dying law would influence palliative care

Responding to the BMA survey of GPs, 14% (n=2,021) who opposed assisted dying said that the focus should instead be placed on providing better quality palliative and end-of-life care.

For pharmacists opposed to assisted dying, many felt that good palliative care would relieve the problems that may be pushing some people towards opting to end their lives, and that it should receive more funding to enable this. 

“Proper provision of palliative care should be available to avoid the scenarios described by many as a justification for assisted dying,” one person commented.

“I do not deny that many people suffer bodily, emotionally and psychologically, which can lead them in that state to prefer death than lacking in hope of improvement, but I have also seen how timely pain relief, support, spiritual and human preparation for death offered by good palliative care can change this,” another comment said. 

“We desperately need better palliative care provision which needs financial support as a lot of funding comes from charities. Assisted dying takes away from this — even negating this work,” they added.

One respondent who felt that palliative care is “not receiving sufficient investment” said that this means many patients cannot access the right care to manage their illness as they approach end of life. 

“This could lead to many choosing assisted dying in the absence of proper palliative care and subsequently shorten their lives,” they said. 

Here, some people had personal experiences which drove their decision. 

“In my experience as a hospice pharmacist, many patients change their mind about wanting to die if their symptoms are alleviated. I would not want to be involved in facilitating the assisted dying process as part of my hospice role,” one pharmacist stated. 

And another who is undergoing treatment for cancer said the bill “terrified” them.

“If this bill is passed you will see a decline in hospice quality and end of life care. People need to be able to die in dignity through appropriate care,” they said. 

Risk of abuse

The idea that vulnerable people may be coerced into choosing assisted dying gave many of our survey respondents pause for thought. With GPs, the risk to vulnerable patients was the second most commonly expressed reason for opposing a change in the law, given by 18% (n=2,598).

One pharmacist felt the safeguards “will always be circumvented by those unscrupulous people”. 

Another said: “The possibilities for misuse, coercion and exploitation of the vulnerable are obvious. This would be a fundamental change in what the NHS was set up to provide.”

Some respondents to The Pharmaceutical Journal survey said that relatives and friends may encourage someone to opt for assisted death.

One response argued that it is “open to misuse by those who do not put the interest of the patient first, e.g. relatives wanting a quick death”, while another said it could “lead to many innocent deaths when the individuals could be persuaded if they were fully informed or if they had decided the change their mind the last minute”. 

Along a similar vein, some pharmacists felt the eligibility requirements for assisted dying would be broadened down the line if the law were to change.

“I believe this will be a slippery slope where we end up in a situation where anyone is able to request assisted suicide for any reason,” one response said. 

Protections for healthcare professionals

Some respondents felt that clinicians may be forced into acting against their beliefs, or that they may face a lack of protections if they chose to participate. 

“This could place healthcare professionals in the untenable position of being forced to act against their religious, professional and moral standards. I also feel that this law could just act as a starting point and that future amendments would make it increasingly easy to end another person’s life ‘lawfully’,” one respondent said. 

Another added: “What will it do to healthcare staff who take part in this and then later regret it? Who will care for them in their distress?”

One respondent felt that opting out would not be possible: “If such a service were ever legalised, there would need to be […] protections for healthcare professionals to conscientiously object on a case-by-case basis. I have no confidence this would happen,” they voiced.

Being a burden

Feeling concerned that unwell people may feel like a burden on society and that there was an expectation on them to opt for an assisted death was another theme evident across the comments from pharmacist respondents. 

“I feel it follows the trend in which elderly and disabled people are being pushed out of society because they are no longer economically useful to society,” one person told us. 

It would be “impossible to protect patients from pressure to do this,” said another. 

“Even if family don’t pressure or expect the patient to do this, the patient is likely to feel obliged to ‘not be a burden’.”

Learnings from other countries

Respondents who did not support assisted dying often used examples from other countries where assisted dying has been legalised to support their view. 

For example, in Canada, just under 5% of deaths are now a result of medically assisted dying. Meanwhile, the number of euthanasia deaths in the Netherlands has risen by around 10%, from 9,064 in 2023 to 9,958 in 2024. 

One survey response, from a specialist mental health pharmacist of over 20 years, said: “Assisted dying in other countries has already led to lack of protection for vulnerable people — elderly, people with mental illness.”

Another said the rate of assisted suicide in Canada was “horrific”, adding that this would “normalise a choice of taking own life instead of choosing medical treatment (such as mental health conditions)”.

Pharmacists who were unsure

Around 10% (n=80) of the pharmacists surveyed said they were unsure about whether they supported assisted dying. Several of the comments referred to a desire for improved access to palliative care and a concern that safeguards would not go far enough to protect people.  

“People should have the choice but I think implicating medical staff and making them compliant in the decision is not right. I would feel uncomfortable being compliant in supplying the medication/supporting the decision” one pharmacist explained.

Another said that their religion prevented them from backing assisted dying, but there may be “extreme occasions” when “a larger dose of pain reliever than usual seems the only humanitarian thing to do, even if it hastens death”. 

Some worried that assisted dying may worsen healthcare inequalities. “I feel that because of societal inequalities certain people may be more likely to end their lives as they may feel their life is not important enough,” one respondent said. 

“I worry that minorities — such as people of colour or working class people, queer people, etc, — may be more inclined to go through with this process because of discrimination or mental health issues.” 

The path ahead

Pharmacists’ views vary widely on this sensitive topic, but it is clear that high-quality patient care and compassion for those in pain was important to many survey respondents. 

It is unknown whether the assisted dying bills will become law in England, Wales and Scotland, but — even if they do — they may not come into force for up to four years.

However, the BBC reported in January 2026 that it may be “very, very” difficult for the England and Wales bill to pass before the deadline of May 2026 (bills must pass both Houses by the end of the current session or it will fail)^​6​. 

On this point, there have been further reports of whether The Parliament Act allows for a bill that has been passed by the Commons but rejected by the Lords to return in a new parliamentary session, to be invoked.

Although the current proposed bills contain details on which people would be eligible for assisted dying and how the decision would be made whether to approve their requests, it is unclear how the practicalities of assisted dying would work. This includes the substances that would be used in eligible individuals and the exact level of involvement from pharmacy professionals who choose to participate. 

In Laura’s case — who says that her mother and sisters experienced “two to three weeks of unnecessary trauma around my mum’s death” — she argues there should be a legal option for terminally ill people to choose when to die. 

“We just keep people alive at all costs,” she notes. “But you get to the point where the kindest thing is death, or to shorten that death.”

“It would mean so much to know that everyone with a terminal illness in England and Wales have another option, should they wish to choose that.” 

• This article was amended on 2 March 2026 to replace Figure 5, following an issue with our data visualisation software